 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5845
Location: Memphis
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Dust wrote: | A primate is a beast.
...
Now I can see a primate evolving, perhaps, into other types of primates. Science does indicate that distance, enviroment, and/or certain adapted traits can lead to this sort of thing. Not to mention that this is obvious by simply observing the diversity in people. |
Humans are primates. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Humans are primates. |
This is completely correct. We are also homonids, mammals, chordates, and animals.
This is called taxonomy and Linnaeus is remembered as a scientific genius for coming up with this way to conceptually organize life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 881
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: |
Humans are primates. |
| P1234567890 wrote: | This is completely correct. We are also homonids, mammals, chordates, and animals.
This is called taxonomy and Linnaeus is remembered as a scientific genius for coming up with this way to conceptually organize life. |
Come on now be genuine. With the bible verses I quoted, I showed the actual separation I am talking about. P and FFT, if y'all are so limited by the limitations of formal theoretic science, that you are unable to discern the separation between man and beast, then I think we have found the point at which formal limitations break-down.
If you must.....monkey's are an order of primate catagorized as 'beast'. Men, though scientifically called primates, are of a totally different kind. Furthermore, there are several speices of monkey primates, yet there is only one speices of man. Though man has a diversity of features morphologically determined by habitat, distance, and other factors. The same factors said to account for new species among beasts. Hmmm...
Besides, the difference between man and monkey/beast is obvious to even the most casual observer. Only the bonds of theoretical scientific formality seems to obscure this. Remember, you are not trapped in a theory.....it's JUST a theory, after all! Although I am aware of the pressure scientists are under to remain within these limitations.
From wiki.....
| Quote: | | Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial[1] documentary film which claims that educators and scientists are being persecuted for their belief that there is evidence of design in nature. Hosted by Ben Stein, it claims that what the film calls “Big Science" allows no dissent from the scientific theory of evolution, and blames the theory for a range of modern movements from Nazism to Planned Parenthood.[2][3] It is due to be released on April 18, 2008.[4] |
I suggest we all see this documentary. It due out, in a couple of weeks.
Last edited by Dust on Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:57 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nobody says that there are not very important differences between humans and animals.
Taxonomy isn't so much concerned with the differences, though. It is concerned with the similarities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bouncer
Kitten
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 148
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:52 am Post subject: Re: Poll: Who here believes in evolution? |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Bouncer wrote: |
I vote no. I accept the ToE as the best known explanation for the data. But I don't Believe in it.
|
I think you're getting too semantic on me. I'm not putting any special meaning into the word 'believe'. I just want to find out what people think. |
In a discussion of this sort, I think it is important to make the distinction. I do not "Believe in" Evolution, but I believe the Evolutionary process takes place.
| Quote: | | Put it this way: A gun is put to your head by someone who *definitely* knows the answer, and they ask you if humans evolved from lower primates. If you get the answer right, then you live, and if you get the answer wrong, then you die. What do you say? |
You mean other than "Oh ###$?" I don't have a clue. One can say funny things in that circumstance.
| Quote: | | Bouncer wrote: |
If a better explanation becomes known then the ToE will just be another item in the dustbin of scientific history.
|
Sure, I agree. But that's true of any scientific theory. |
Last edited by Bouncer on Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:45 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | | Only the bonds of theoretical scientific formality seems to obscure this. Remember, you are not trapped in a theory.....it's JUST a theory, after all! |
Oh the old dishonest "It's just a theory." argument. It was only a matter of time before it reared its ugly head again.
Do you understand WHY this argument is dishonest? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:39 pm Post subject: Re: Poll: Who here believes in evolution? |
|
|
| Bouncer wrote: |
| Quote: | | Put it this way: A gun is put to your head by someone who *definitely* knows the answer, and they ask you if humans evolved from lower primates. If you get the answer right, then you live, and if you get the answer wrong, then you die. What do you say? |
You mean other than "Oh ###$?" I don't have a clue. One can say funny things in that circumstance. |
Come on, don't give me a hard time. You know what I'm asking.
Did we evolve from lower primates? Yes or no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Humans are primates. |
This is completely correct. We are also homonids, mammals, chordates, and animals.
This is called taxonomy and Linnaeus is remembered as a scientific genius for coming up with this way to conceptually organize life. |
I'm not sure I like the current ideas about taxonomy (not that I'm an expert or anything). It seems like there's confusion over things like speciation that could be avoided if things were taxonomized differently. For instance, when new species arise, it's not (in my somewhat ignorant opinion) that they're new species but new sub-categories. This will continue as time passes. There will be new levels of categorization. However, most people who don't understand this think that evolution posits that things will hop branches into other (pre-existing usually) categories, but evolution is about making new categories.
Anyways, that's my 2 cents. As for the poll, I currently accept evolution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5845
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | | Come on now be genuine. With the bible verses I quoted, I showed the actual separation I am talking about. |
And we disagree that there is any such separation.
| Dust wrote: | | P and FFT, if y'all are so limited by the limitations of formal theoretic science, that you are unable to discern the separation between man and beast, then I think we have found the point at which formal limitations break-down. |
 It's easy to pick out the differences between humans and other animals, but that doesn't make us not animals.
| Dust wrote: | | If you must.....monkey's are an order of primate catagorized as 'beast'. |
I've never seen this used this way in a scientific context.
| Dust wrote: | | Men, though scientifically called primates, are of a totally different kind. |
Define "kind."
| Dust wrote: | | Furthermore, there are several speices of monkey primates, yet there is only one speices of man. |
Currently, yes.
| Dust wrote: | | Besides, the difference between man and monkey/beast is obvious to even the most casual observer. |
Is this how you determine "kind"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 881
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | Oh the old dishonest "It's just a theory." argument. It was only a matter of time before it reared its ugly head again.
Do you understand WHY this argument is dishonest? |
Pointing out that a theory is a theory, and is not fact, is dishonest. I beg to differ with you. Entreating a theory as fact is dishonest.
But my point in-discussion is that theories have parameters. However, when investigating the veracity of the theory we are not bound by those parameters. It is, after all, just a theory. If it were fact, then we would be truly bound.
I see the theory of evolution being entreated (for what ever reason) as fact, when of course it is not. It may deal with some facts, but the theory itself is not fact.
Entreating it as fact is not only dishonest and deceiving, but is dangerous to the world. Let me explain.......
If one believes the theory of evolution to be correct, then we have a belief that competes with belief in creation, and thus we have a true characterization of the 'Evolution vs. Creation Argument'..... belief vs belief.
But....
If the 'Evolution vs. Creation Argument' is characterized as Fact vs. mere belief, and this characterization takes hold, then it could lead to an unjustified global paradigm-shift regarding the basis of reality. Such a shift taken to it's literal extreme could and/or would halt the worldwide advancement towards the goals of Christianity. Take this force out of the world, and conceivably there would be a worldwide shift back to mans most unpleasant former barbaric ways. As it is we have not completely separated from these former ways, but we have, at present, and to some degree, moved away from these former barbaric ways (not withstanding the occasions in-which the advancement of Christian goals seems to become either stagnat or takes a step back, as history, and even personal experience attests).
If the current theory-of-evolution ever does come to be believed by all to be fact, and discredits the biblical narration of creation, then the goals of Christianity, which reach far beyond the two-billion Christians on the face of the planet, would be sent into de-evolution mode........Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!
Anyway in my last post I subtly provided factual information which conclusively counters the belief that man came from apes, and provides predictable varification of the Genesis account of man's unique creation as recorded in the bible (my bit on speciation of man vs. speciation of monkey kind). Yeah, morphology, adaptation and other parts of the evolution theory are great, but MAN DID NOT COME FROM MONKEYS! Sorry to say.....this little postulation tends to discredit the whole evo-theory, which, BTW, is kind of what your survey is indicating thus far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ace070590
Little Guppy
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 39
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't been on in ages, but there's a time and place for everything. I also noticed that P123 is still here debating and trying to convince us that we evolved from a species that has features like ours (give me a break).
Anyways, I'll answer the question that's being asked, and I vote NO!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5845
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | | If one believes the theory of evolution to be correct, then we have a belief that competes with belief in creation, and thus we have a true characterization of the 'Evolution vs. Creation Argument'..... belief vs belief. |
You see? I told you this junk was going to happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: | Oh the old dishonest "It's just a theory." argument. It was only a matter of time before it reared its ugly head again.
Do you understand WHY this argument is dishonest? |
Pointing out that a theory is a theory, and is not fact, is dishonest. I beg to differ with you. Entreating a theory as fact is dishonest. |
Fine, I'll explain it to you. People on the street use the word 'theory' to mean 'unsupported hypothesis'. But in science, a 'theory' is a well-established, and well-supported set of claims which you get AFTER a hypothesis has been put through the ringer and has been established and is supported by EVIDENCE.
When people say that evolution is 'just a theory', they're (purposefully) confusing the term 'theory of evolution' with the vernacular use of the word 'theory' as an unsupported hypothesis. This is dishonest. So you really shouldn't say, "It's just a theory." again, because now you know, and it will make you look dishonest.
As for the other direction, the 'theory of evolution' really shouldn't be called the 'theory of evolution' at all. The one and only reason it isn't referred to as the 'law of evolution' is because scientific jargon prefers to associate laws with physics, math, and logic rather than with biology. But certainly it is well-established, well-supported, and accepted enough to be called a 'law'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Dust wrote: | | If one believes the theory of evolution to be correct, then we have a belief that competes with belief in creation, and thus we have a true characterization of the 'Evolution vs. Creation Argument'..... belief vs belief. |
You see? I told you this junk was going to happen. |
You were right. I wish I didn't have to do a full-fledged analysis of every possible semantic nuance of anything I ever write here, but apparently I do.
I guess the question is, who does this reflect badly on, me for being naive in my original wording (which, by the way has since been corrected), or Dust for jumping all over a word which I clearly didn't mean in that way and clarified as soon as I became aware of the potential misunderstanding?
Last edited by P1234567890 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 5:24 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: |
I'm not sure I like the current ideas about taxonomy (not that I'm an expert or anything). It seems like there's confusion over things like speciation that could be avoided if things were taxonomized differently. For instance, when new species arise, it's not (in my somewhat ignorant opinion) that they're new species but new sub-categories. This will continue as time passes. There will be new levels of categorization. However, most people who don't understand this think that evolution posits that things will hop branches into other (pre-existing usually) categories, but evolution is about making new categories.
Anyways, that's my 2 cents. As for the poll, I currently accept evolution. |
Linnaeus's idea of taxonomy was an important breakthrough, but it is outdated. Taxonomy has largely been replaced by cladistics:
http://www.bible-discussion.com/message-board-forum/viewtopic.php?t=6667&start=0
It is based on gene sequencing, and is a much more exact science.
By the way, here's a great picture showing how a good portion of the life on Earth evolved:
http://www.tellapallet.com/TreeOfLife.jpg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
